From db6eb90094bb4462b6cde2e9a927df03ee788f22 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: James O'Beirne Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 18:34:28 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] [doc] Remove outdated comment about mining code ignoring CPFP BlockAssembler chooses transactions on the basis of packages (which incorporate unconfirmed ancestors into feerate), so the specified RBF comment about mining code ignoring CPFP is out of date. --- src/validation.cpp | 12 +++++------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/validation.cpp b/src/validation.cpp index 9b8bdcd59..87bd2563c 100644 --- a/src/validation.cpp +++ b/src/validation.cpp @@ -806,13 +806,11 @@ static bool AcceptToMemoryPoolWorker(const CChainParams& chainparams, CTxMemPool // be increased is also an easy-to-reason about way to prevent // DoS attacks via replacements. // - // The mining code doesn't (currently) take children into - // account (CPFP) so we only consider the feerates of - // transactions being directly replaced, not their indirect - // descendants. While that does mean high feerate children are - // ignored when deciding whether or not to replace, we do - // require the replacement to pay more overall fees too, - // mitigating most cases. + // We only consider the feerates of transactions being directly + // replaced, not their indirect descendants. While that does + // mean high feerate children are ignored when deciding whether + // or not to replace, we do require the replacement to pay more + // overall fees too, mitigating most cases. CFeeRate oldFeeRate(mi->GetModifiedFee(), mi->GetTxSize()); if (newFeeRate <= oldFeeRate) {